I have found out that I can use emulators like qemu ! but I don't have info about it for example whether it makes my linux slow or not???is it worth to use them or is it better to install another 64bit linux?

I heard the speed penalty of QEMU of running a 64 bit VM on a 32-bit OS (64-bit CPU) is high but not unusable. However nothing will beat a fresh 64-bit install on a 64-bit CPU. I found that PAE 32-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU is a significant penalty in itself but not nearly as much as running a 64-bit VM on a 32-bit OS.

I reinstalled on my 32 bit OS 64-bit CPUs and noticed a bit of a speedup over the PAE kernels I have been running to access all 4GB+ of RAM. Disk speeds didn't change any, just pure memory-intensive applications._________________Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSDWhat am I supposed to be advocating?

Why? It will slow down your system if you use an emulator, so what possible use could having 64-bit binaries? Unless it's for bragging rights.

Testing purposes. When 64 bit was still new, the only option most (compiler and assembly) developers had was to use an emulator to validate their code.

But yeah, nowadays, it's silly not to use a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit machine.

The only problem I can see is if 32bit binaries have to be used. Then there is a similar problem to using 64 on a 32 bit system, emulator lag? WINE used to be a swine to configure on a 64 bit system because of all the 32 bit compatibility libraries, but maybe that's changed now.

64bit chroot?_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

The only problem I can see is if 32bit binaries have to be used. Then there is a similar problem to using 64 on a 32 bit system, emulator lag? WINE used to be a swine to configure on a 64 bit system because of all the 32 bit compatibility libraries, but maybe that's changed now.

The few 32 bit blobs I come across run just fine on my 64 bit machine. Not sure how much (if any) performance penalty there is, but if it's designed for a 32 bit CPU, any modern CPU should run it really well._________________Core i7-3930k
DX79SI
16GB 1600 DDR3
GTX 970 4GB
120mm Delta fan with Cindy Wu sensorless DSP drive
900W Lainey Schmidt digital power system
128GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD (/)
2x 1TB HDD RAID 0 (/bulk)

you mean I shoud install xorg,desktop and ... ??? if so what is difference with reinstalling?

Basically he's telling you to build a new system in a directory and then boot off a cd and move it all to / What that means is you can use your computer while most of it is being done. You're probably better off just reinstalling just to be safe_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

I had been running 32-bit on my 64-bit CPUs for a long time too, it took me forever to transition - mostly because I didn't want to... reinstall._________________Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSDWhat am I supposed to be advocating?

I had been running 32-bit on my 64-bit CPUs for a long time too, it took me forever to transition - mostly because I didn't want to... reinstall.

Really? I used to do it all the time. I could never stop fiddling and kept messing my up system and instead of taking 4 days to fix it it was best just to reinstall. Eventually I could do it with my eyes closed. I always meant to do a stage 4 but never bothered. I toyed around with things like

Code:

emerge -C glibc && emerge --depclean && emerge system

Or something. I can't remember the exact things. It was fun but I always ended up reinstalling_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

Why? It will slow down your system if you use an emulator, so what possible use could having 64-bit binaries? Unless it's for bragging rights.

Testing purposes. When 64 bit was still new, the only option most (compiler and assembly) developers had was to use an emulator to validate their code.

But yeah, nowadays, it's silly not to use a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit machine.

The only problem I can see is if 32bit binaries have to be used. Then there is a similar problem to using 64 on a 32 bit system, emulator lag? WINE used to be a swine to configure on a 64 bit system because of all the 32 bit compatibility libraries, but maybe that's changed now.

Not quite a similar problem
32bit OS trying to execute a 64bit binary is an impossibility since the kernel would have set the CPU into 32bit mode - short of software emulating a complete 64bit CPU
a 64bit OS trying to execute a 32bit binary is just a case of ensuring the correct associated libraries exist_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

Right, I didn't want to reinstall, I wanted to use my computer for things other than (rebooting and) reinstalling :D And yes I tend to fix rather than reinstall. There were a couple of instances that I had to end up reinstalling but those were extremely rare.

And yes I tend to stage4 most new machines now. I actually keep two external USB/eSATA hard drives with a generic base "stage 4" Gentoo systems (one x86, one x86_64) that I bootstrap with - to minimize setup times. Basically all I need to do is boot with those disks, copy everything from that HDD, setup bootloader, and reboot. I then can use that machine while it emerges the rest of the packages I need for that system.

What's annoying is trying to keep those setups up to date, and yes that means I have to emerge --update world on those disks too. Right now I use a... QEMU virtual machine to boot and update those stage 4 hard drives..._________________Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSDWhat am I supposed to be advocating?

Server Manager in Server2008R2 allows me to make nice system state and bare bones backups that I keep on a remote host which is useful. I haven't seen such a feature in Linux but there must be one - although it may not be as polished as the MS one. Plus Linux could do with a single set of server tools packaged together in the same way as Server Manager although lots of people would complain about what's in it (or what's not)_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

Server 2012 is like $500 for just the bare-bones home user type of setup (no more than two processors, etc.). Plus, you have to pay for whatever you're going to run on it.

The un-crippled version is $6,000 (plus whatever you're going to run on it)._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

Server 2012 is like $500 for just the bare-bones home user type of setup (no more than two processors, etc.). Plus, you have to pay for whatever you're going to run on it.

The un-crippled version is $6,000 (plus whatever you're going to run on it).

I'd say cokehabit is wearing the eyepatch to avoid that.

Not at all. I have Server 2008R2 Standard, Enterprise and Datacentre (they come together). I got it free._________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...